: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

I can't sleep at night knowing proto-facists like you run around screaming for this sh!t.

So what are we suppose do to (fixed) protect the people who are killing dozens just so we can have some moral high ground!?

No, but a majority of criminologists agree that 1) CP does not have a deterrence impact and that 2) rehabilitation works better.Why kill someone for killing someone and claim that killing is wrong? That logic is fundamentally flawed and sends a contradicting message.

The next time a crazy comes and kills someone close to you then come talk to me.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

So why don't we kill the killers who CONFESS to the killings? Doesn't that seem fair?

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them. 2 there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

So why don't we kill the killers who CONFESS to the killings? Doesn't that seem fair?

Many confessions are obtained under duress, either from external persons/forces, or internal mental illness. There are certainly cases where I would support execution as a form of punishment, but only if an extremely high level of certainty/evidence was available. Unfortunately, this standard is hardly ever met, and as such, I am generally against the Death Penalty.

Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them. 2 there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Thought experiment: Tennessee has CP and you live in it. You walk upstairs with a gun because you herd a rustle upstairs. You walk into a man raping your daughter. What do you do?

Most common response: shoot that man, it'll save money from the justice system, and then you find yourself on trial for second degree murder. Have fun with that. This is why CP doesn't work.

The point of sentencing is not to make the victims and their families feel better. Nothing the courts do can heal those wounds, and an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind. The point of sentencing is not to punish or deter crimes either; because neither is practical. Sentencing only deters crimes when they violate the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments, and punishing a criminal after he committed the crime does nothing to resolve the issue of criminal behavior, other than dishing out consequences for getting caught. The point of sentencing, at-least the only one that makes any logical sense, is to rehabilitate criminals; give them an education, put them on meds, give them counseling, introduce them to some form of religion (although organized religion is bogus it is as a helpful vehicle for rehabilitating both criminals and alcoholics), or just give them some structure to help them grow the F*** up.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

ye're

Also, expand upon what you mean by rule of law.

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Don't butcher Gandhi....or the other side. It makes my brain hurt.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

The point of sentencing is not to make the victims and their families feel better. Nothing the courts do can heal those wounds, and an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind. The point of sentencing is not to punish or deter crimes either; because neither is practical. Sentencing only deters crimes when they violate the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments, and punishing a criminal after he committed the crime does nothing to resolve the issue of criminal behavior, other than dishing out consequences for getting caught. The point of sentencing, at-least the only one that makes any logical sense, is to rehabilitate criminals; give them an education, put them on meds, give them counseling, introduce them to some form of religion (although organized religion is bogus it is as a helpful vehicle for rehabilitating both criminals and alcoholics), or just give them some structure to help them grow the F*** up.

That being said; those who cannot be rehabilitated should either be exiled or executed. Exile is the more humane of the two, but it just hands the problem over to some other country. By no means should they be sharing a facility with those you are trying to rehabilitate.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

ye're

**You're**

those who live in glass houses really ought to not throw stones eh?

Also, expand upon what you mean by rule of law.

If you use death as a means to force someone to confess, it diminishes the rule of law (assuming it works)

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Don't butcher Gandhi....or the other side. It makes my brain hurt.

Ghandi was a racist and undeserving of his praise. That being said, the sentence summed up the situation perfectly and elegantly to the point that I couldn't have done it any other way.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

ye're

**You're**

I've heard it both ways.

those who live in glass houses really ought to not throw stones eh?

It's a glass shed, learn the difference.

Also, expand upon what you mean by rule of law.

If you use death as a means to force someone to confess, it diminishes the rule of law (assuming it works)

I'll repeat, what do you refer to when you say "rule of law".

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Don't butcher Gandhi....or the other side. It makes my brain hurt.

Ghandi was a racist and undeserving of his praise. That being said, the sentence summed up the situation perfectly and elegantly to the point that I couldn't have done it any other way.

You could have done it so many other ways but I digress. For all of Gandhi's good works and praiseworthy teachings, this quote really is just bleh.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

an eye for an eye teaches people about consequences. If they think they can get away with something they will keep doing. It's called positive reinforcement. So if everyone has a right to life , those who take it away should therefore get their lives taken away. Correlation does not imply causation meaning that you can't say that capital punishment actually causes more crime.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

an eye for an eye teaches people about consequences.

Unless they're dead of course.

If they think they can get away with something they will keep doing. It's called positive reinforcement.

You mean negative reinforcement.

So if everyone has a right to life , those who take it away should therefore get their lives taken away.

Obviously lol.

Correlation does not imply causation meaning that you can't say that capital punishment actually causes more crime.

*waits for you to see why it's hilarious that YOU said this*

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

The point of sentencing is not to make the victims and their families feel better. Nothing the courts do can heal those wounds, and an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind. The point of sentencing is not to punish or deter crimes either; because neither is practical. Sentencing only deters crimes when they violate the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments, and punishing a criminal after he committed the crime does nothing to resolve the issue of criminal behavior, other than dishing out consequences for getting caught. The point of sentencing, at-least the only one that makes any logical sense, is to rehabilitate criminals; give them an education, put them on meds, give them counseling, introduce them to some form of religion (although organized religion is bogus it is as a helpful vehicle for rehabilitating both criminals and alcoholics), or just give them some structure to help them grow the F*** up.

You can only rehabilitate those who actually want to be rehabilitated and many sadistic serial killers simply don't.

No I mean positive reinforcement, please learn to comprehend what you read. If someone can get a positive benefit out of something they will continue to do it. Such as a person kills and keeps killing because he thinks he can get away with it.

So if everyone has a right to life , those who take it away should therefore get their lives taken away.

Obviously lol

So my point on the death penalty is valid then.

Correlation does not imply causation meaning that you can't say that capital punishment actually causes more crime.

*waits for you to see why it's hilarious that YOU said this*

I actually don't see why it's hilarious. It's obvious if you kill a criminal it prevents him from committing more crimes. Even middle schoolers know that.

No I mean positive reinforcement, please learn to comprehend what you read. If someone can get a positive benefit out of something they will continue to do it. Such as a person kills and keeps killing because he thinks he can get away with it.

I assumed you meant negative given that if you meant positive you'd have to be spectacularly ignorant of the other methods used to stop people from murdering each other that don't involve......killing them.

So if everyone has a right to life , those who take it away should therefore get their lives taken away.

Correlation does not imply causation meaning that you can't say that capital punishment actually causes more crime.

*waits for you to see why it's hilarious that YOU said this*

I actually don't see why it's hilarious. It's obvious if you kill a criminal it prevents him from committing more crimes. Even middle schoolers know that.

Oh my god he doesn't even understand his own side's use of the 'deterrent' argument.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

an eye for an eye teaches people about consequences.

If they're dead they can't learn sh!t...are you retarded?

If they think they can get away with something they will keep doing. It's called positive reinforcement.

Yeah ... they also happen to suffer from a cadre of mental diseases. Would you kill someone for having paranoid schizophrenia? I would rather them in a mental hospital.

So if everyone has a right to life , those who take it away should therefore get their lives taken away.

LOL if the state is not responsible for your procreation how is it able to justify taking it away?

Correlation does not imply causation meaning that you can't say that capital punishment actually causes more crime.

And YOU cannot conclude that it is a deterrence. Nor have I ever claimed there was causaltiy. Look above, I clearly stated "Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime."

correlated.correlated.correlated.

ya see it?!?! Do ya? Huh?! Huh?!

Now, in my short conversation with you you have displayed the following:Poor argumentationA lack of understanding in using fallaciesAnd an inability to read ...

1/10.

I think my IQ is actually dropping discussing this issue with you as we speak, because your argument is bad.

At 1/20/2014 6:02:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:A lot of people think the Death Penalty is wrong not because they are against "killing killers", but because too many innocents are wrongly convicted/punished with the DP.

Better to let a thousand killers rot in prison, then kill one innocent.

It is a crime deterrent because it gets rid of the people who commit them.

Okay, now you're an idiot. a large body of research shows this is false and in fact is correlated with more crime.This is also generally agreed upon with criminologists.

there are many cases where instances of guilt is out isn't even questioned. Such as killers who CONFESS and overwhelming evidence.

It's called the rule of law. You have the right to life. How hard is this to understand? What would be the point in confessing if your just gonna be killed?

We kill someone so they can't kill anyone else. It's called justifiable homicide.

Uhh LOL no.We kill because someone came up with a really stupid idea "an eye for an eye" but it doesn't work. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

an eye for an eye teaches people about consequences.

Unless they're dead of course.

If they think they can get away with something they will keep doing. It's called positive reinforcement.

You mean negative reinforcement.

So if everyone has a right to life , those who take it away should therefore get their lives taken away.

Obviously lol.

Correlation does not imply causation meaning that you can't say that capital punishment actually causes more crime.

*waits for you to see why it's hilarious that YOU said this*

i had a whole rebuttal for this..then my laptop fvcked up on me. I think I'm just gonna let this one go.Your trolling is sub-par though.

i had a whole rebuttal for this..then my laptop fvcked up on me. I think I'm just gonna let this one go.Your trolling is sub-par though.

I was only half-trolling.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.